Loguerre v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Loguerre v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission

61 So. 3d 1183, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 5650, 2011 WL 1501991

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 21, 2011

Docket1D10-3713

StatusPublished

This text of 61 So. 3d 1183 (Loguerre v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Loguerre v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 61 So. 3d 1183, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 5650, 2011 WL 1501991 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this unemployment compensation appeal, Appellant challenges the Unemployment Appeals Commission’s order denying benefits. An appeals referee originally awarded benefits, determining Appellant’s failure to pass a necessary certification exam did not rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct defined in section 443.036(29)(a), Florida Statutes (2009). Appellant’s employer appealed the decision to the Commission, which determined the referee’s decision was not supported by competent, substantial evidence. The Commission concluded the only competent, substantial evidence in the record supported the conclusion that Appellant was discharged for misconduct connected with her work.

We are compelled to reverse the Commission’s order under the supreme court’s and this court’s precedent. See Gulf County Sch. Bd. v. Washington, 567 So.2d 420 (Fla.1990); Caro v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 734 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). In Washington, a teacher was discharged after failing a required certification exam three years in a row. Washington, 567 So.2d at 420. The court reasoned that under well-settled law, an employee who is discharged for inadequate work performance is entitled to benefits, and no meaningful distinction exists between an employee who cannot meet a known condition of work and one who simply fails to measure up to the job requirements. Id. at 423. The teacher was thus entitled to benefits. Id. The court noted that had the school board proven the teacher failed to adequately prepare for the exam, she may have been denied compensation for engaging in misconduct. Id. at 422.

Here, although some evidence exists to find that Appellant did not adequately prepare for the required exam and that she avoided admitting she failed, this court has held that such evidence does not rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct. See Caro, 734 So.2d at 1078 (following Washington, and holding that while the claimant may have demonstrated poor judgment by failing to adequately prepare for teacher’s exam, she was not guilty of misconduct). Therefore, the Commission erroneously concluded that Appellant engaged in misconduct connected to her work.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

HAWKES, THOMAS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In this unemployment compensation appeal, Appellant challenges the Unemployment Appeals Commission’s order denying benefits. An appeals referee originally awarded benefits, determining Appellant’s failure to pass a necessary certification exam did not rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct defined in section 443.036(29)(a), Florida Statutes (2009). Appellant’s employer appealed the decision to the Commission, which determined the referee’s decision was not supported by competent, substantial evidence. The Commission concluded the only competent, substantial evidence in the record supported the conclusion that Appellant was discharged for misconduct connected with her work.

We are compelled to reverse the Commission’s order under the supreme court’s and this court’s precedent. See Gulf County Sch. Bd. v. Washington, 567 So.2d 420 (Fla.1990); Caro v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 734 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). In Washington, a teacher was discharged after failing a required certification exam three years in a row. Washington, 567 So.2d at 420. The court reasoned that under well-settled law, an employee who is discharged for inadequate work performance is entitled to benefits, and no meaningful distinction exists between an employee who cannot meet a known condition of work and one who simply fails to measure up to the job requirements. Id. at 423. The teacher was thus entitled to benefits. Id. The court noted that had the school board proven the teacher failed to adequately prepare for the exam, she may have been denied compensation for engaging in misconduct. Id. at 422.

Here, although some evidence exists to find that Appellant did not adequately prepare for the required exam and that she avoided admitting she failed, this court has held that such evidence does not rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct. See Caro, 734 So.2d at 1078 (following Washington, and holding that while the claimant may have demonstrated poor judgment by failing to adequately prepare for teacher’s exam, she was not guilty of misconduct). Therefore, the Commission erroneously concluded that Appellant engaged in misconduct connected to her work.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

HAWKES, THOMAS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 So. 3d 1183, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 5650, 2011 WL 1501991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loguerre-v-florida-unemployment-appeals-commission-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack